Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

The Democratic Caucus is split over the climate bill, with coal-, oil- and manufacturing-state Democrats raising concerns that a cap-and-trade system would disproportionately spike electricity bills for consumers and business in their regions.
Reuters

Digg/Buzz It Up

POLITICO 44

The climate bill is not dead, but its pulse is rapidly weakening on Capitol Hill.

Harry Reid says he doesn’t have time for it. The White House has been largely silent on the legislation. And one Treasury analysis — disputed by critics — that says a cap-and-trade system could cost $200 billion landed with a thud on Wednesday.

The Senate majority leader seems ready to punt the climate debate into 2010, with the Senate already bogged down in health care and hoping to push through a major Wall Street reform bill also this fall.

“We are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year,” said Reid. “And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year. We still have next year to complete things if we have to.”

The Democratic Caucus is split over the bill, with coal-, oil- and manufacturing-state Democrats raising concerns that a cap-and-trade system would disproportionately spike electricity bills for consumers and business in their regions.

Adding to their difficulties, Senate Democratic aides have interpreted the White House’s relative silence on the issue, particularly after President Barack Obama’s recent speech on financial regulatory reform, as a sign the administration does not want to expend much political capital on a global warming bill this year.

Against these odds, Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) plan to introduce a climate bill at the end of the month, with a markup in Boxer’s committee in October.

But even if they keep to their self-imposed deadline, they’ll have major trouble getting floor time in the Senate.

“I’m not sure that [Reid] has any choice,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “He knows that climate change is more of the same, so it’s unrealistic that we could squeeze both those before now and the end of the year.”

Instead of pushing a comprehensive bill, some Democrats are pushing for an incremental approach, moving a more modest energy bill while leaving the more controversial cap-and-trade proposals for a later date.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for example, approved energy legislation with bipartisan support in June that mandates utilities provide 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2021. This legislation could provide a good template for an energy bill that does not touch on cap and trade.

“There’s a great bipartisan bill that’s come out of the energy committee that could be a great vehicle and bridge to get us where we need to be,” said Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who does not support the cap and trade passed by the House in June.

But more-liberal Democrats say that cutting out the climate piece of the bill could hurt chances of brokering a global treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions at international talks scheduled for December in Copenhagen.

“I’d like to see climate change done before December so we can go to Copenhagen with something in our hands,” said Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin. “We might be able to get to it in November.”

While Democrats sputter, Republicans are trying to move in for the kill.

On Wednesday, they jumped on a previously unreleased study by the Treasury Department showing that a cap-and-trade system could cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year. Critics said the study was outdated and inaccurate.

I wonder how much it will cost taxpayers to retrofit our ports once sea levels begin to rise. That will be for future generations to discover. This is a sinking ship.....to the lifeboats. Baby boomers first, everyone else swab the deck. Here are some blindfolds.

This "climate bill" is DOA and ready for burial with health care reform in a very deep hole. Americans are finally waking up and are ready to fight to save this country from Barry's Fascist/Socialist ideas. March on freedom loving brothers and sisters, march on!

Gee, so we will not be at a greater economic disadvantage vis a vis the rest of the world; at least not this year. I guess Barry's plan of US bankruptcy by 2010 will have to be put on hold; but wait----there's always health care to push us over the edge.

Support for cap-and-trade has evaporated. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap-and-trade, opinion now is off the charts against it. The Senate will be wise to bury this unpopular, complex and risky legislation.

Climate change is still unproven and very debatable. (Remember after Katrina how there were supposed to be more and stronger hurricanes every year because of global warming?) And anything we do will have little impact on the global situation with other countries like China, India, and Japan doing nothing.

All it will do is cost the United States jobs, the people money, and move industries to other countries that don't have the environmental restrictions congress wants to put on us.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Fathers of this country, in their infinite wisdom, designed the congress in such a way that .......IT CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE.......THAT WAS THE EFFING POINT.

I've always been ambiguous about this bill, and I don't trust what will happen in the Senate after Baucus and the rest go hold of it.

I do think we need more investment in new industries and infrastructure in THIS country, and some kind of national investment bank or fund to do that. We also have to try to ensure that we don't keep losing millions more jobs overseas with nothing to replace them, since I don't think we can survive much more of that.

It is a good idea to get off foreign oil as much as possible, and invest in alternatives in the US, and we will have to do this sooner or later. Without that investment side, I don't think just putting caps on pollution and giving a bunch of credits for Wall Street to play Monopoly with (again) will solve the problem.

Support for cap-and-trade has evaporated. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap-and-trade, opinion now is off the charts against it. The Senate will be wise to bury this unpopular, complex and risky legislation.

Even as a progressive, I was always doubtful about it.

Of course, I'm not like the conservatives on here who never want to change anything and have no new ideas of any kind. There's no future with them, either. As long as Obama loses, they're happy, and they give it no more thought than that.

That's not very smart. Like I said, I do think we need a real national investment fund in all kinds of new industries, infrastructure and technologies, with provisions to ensure that these things will not be outsourced. I do not like having to import so much oil from overseas.

This is the direction I think we should go in, rather than the cap and trade thing, or simply standing pat like the conservatives want--that's dumb, too.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Fathers of this country, in their infinite wisdom, designed the congress in such a way that .......IT CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE.......THAT WAS THE EFFING POINT.

If they had really wanted to get things done, they would have adopted the one-house legislature with the prime minister elected by the representatives, as Benjamin Franklin wanted--basically a parliamentary system. That was actually attempted in many states right after the Revolution.

...On Wednesday, they jumped on a previously unreleased study by the Treasury Department showing that a cap-and-trade system could cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year. Critics said the study was outdated and inaccurate.

That's not very smart. Like I said, I do think we need a real national investment fund in all kinds of new industries, infrastructure and technologies, with provisions to ensure that these things will not be outsourced. I do not like having to import so much oil from overseas.

This is the direction I think we should go in, rather than the cap and trade thing, or simply standing pat like the conservatives want--that's dumb, too.

_________

Mike, almost every conservative I know has been for realistic changes and a proper order of events. I have personally written my representatives with ideas. The current policy by the BO adminstration will actually promote more imports from overseas as they seek to preclude any new domestic exploration in high opportunity oil and gas provinces. I say this because there is going to be a two decade transition period from carbon based fuels to renewables. It is this very twenty year time frame in which the Democrats have built their conundrum. Our PRIMARY job is to become energy independent. Our following goal is to be able to replace our current carbon based reliance with renewables. Domestic drilling is an intergral part of the conservatives plan of which is currently a mortal sin to the BO admin. So in the beginning we should have every single on and offshore drilling rig and geophysical company working 24/7, 365 days a years DOMESTICALLY and throughout North America while at the same time promoting a full scale R & D effort to renewables and building nuke plants. We therefore get the turn the foreign spigot way down much more quickly which makes us safter and stronger while we work our way to realistic goals of renewable energy replacement.

Another Obama idea dying. Thank you! Hey, Mr. President, this is what you get when you let Pelosi run the show. If you were half as smart as you think you are you'd see Pelosi is your worst enemy. She is single handedly bringing you down. She's the gift that keeps giving.